Gingrich misleads on "empathy"
SUMMARY: On Hannity, Newt Gingrich forwarded the false conservative talking point that President Obama said he would seek a justice who shows "empathy" rather than a commitment to follow the law. But Obama actually said his nominee will do both.
During the June 4 edition of Fox News' Hannity, Fox News contributor Newt Gingrich forwarded the false conservative talking point that President Obama said he would seek a justice who shows "empathy" rather than a commitment to follow the law. But Obama actually said his nominee will do both. Gingrich claimed, "Look, the whole concept that President Obama has talked about -- that he worries about empathy. We don't have the rule of empathy. We have the rule of law." In fact, in Obama's May 1 statement to which conservatives have repeatedly pointed, immediately after saying, "I view that quality of empathy, of understanding and identifying with people's hopes and struggles, as an essential ingredient for arriving as just decisions and outcomes," Obama said he "will seek somebody who is dedicated to the rule of law, who honors our constitutional traditions, who respects the integrity of the judicial process and the appropriate limits of the judicial role."
Further, as Media Matters for America has noted, during their confirmation hearings, Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito each acknowledged the significant impact their background and personal experiences have had on their judicial thinking. Alito asserted during his 2006 confirmation hearing: "When I get a case about discrimination, I have to think about people in my own family who suffered discrimination because of their ethnic background or because of religion or because of gender. And I do take that into account." During Thomas' confirmation hearing, Sen. Herb Kohl (D-WI) asked, "I'd like to ask you why you want this job?" Thomas replied in part: "I believe, Senator, that I can make a contribution, that I can bring something different to the Court, that I can walk in the shoes of the people who are affected by what the Court does."
Additionally, numerous Republicans -- including former Sens. Strom Thurmond (SC), Al D'Amato (NY), and Mike DeWine (OH) -- have previously praised compassion as a judicial attribute and highlighted the importance of the personal experiences of judicial nominees.
From the June 4 edition of Fox News' Hannity:
SEAN HANNITY (host): I think we also -- you know, when you look at the case of this firefighter in New Haven, Frank Ricci, a guy that's suffering from dyslexia. He quit a second job so he could study for this promotion.
He spent $1,000 on books, hired somebody to help read the material to him, had tapes on it, comes in sixth. Would have gotten promoted but for the idea of racial quotas. Now, that doesn't sound like equal justice.
GINGRICH: No, there's no --
HANNITY: Go ahead.
GINGRICH: It's not equal justice. Look, the whole concept that President Obama has talked about -- that he worries about empathy. We don't have the rule of empathy. We have the rule of law. And I think that the nomination of Judge Sotomayor is going to, in fact, create a debate in the Congress.
I noticed that Senator Ben Nelson, Democrat from Nebraska, today raised troubling questions. I think as people see more of what she's written, and as they look at the case you just described from New Haven, they're going to be very troubled by this. I don't think the American people believe --
HANNITY: Right.
GINGRICH: -- that we, as individuals, should have group judgments and should be subject to quotas.
HANNITY: Yeah.
It is black & white, binary, 1 or the other.
Either empathy OR law.
With us OR against us.
Against terrorists OR for terrorists.
It just demonstrates the intellectual pretzelizing they must do to score political points with their brain-dead base.
ps. Name calling is about the weakest argument one can make. It does nothing to advance one's arguments or advance the discussion. Personally, I think your repeated use of insults toward those with whom you disagree is a sign of a deep inferiority complex on your part.
Matthew 22:37-39 (King James Version)
37Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.
38This is the first and great commandment.
39And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
The second commandment did not say, "Thou shalt empathize with they neighbor as with thyself".
Have you ever heard of "I love you, I just don't like you". One can love thy neighbor without having empathy toward them.
`The question is,' said Alice, `whether you CAN make words mean so many different things.'
`The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, `which is to be master - - that's all.'
However, I do agree with it. :-)
I don't recall, bu if you said I called Rev. Wright un American, I simply described Rev. Wright's actions and words.
I find it laughable that you would even post on a subject like this. Do you not see your own hypocrisy.
He's also fierce, and an independent thinker.
You sir, on the other hand, exhibit smugness, self righteousness, smarminess and passive aggressiveness on stilts, in addition to a breathtaking literal bent not usually seen beyond the age of twelve.
And you wonder why you inspire contempt.
End of diatribe ;-)
And since you obviously lack awareness, the above is a wink at your passive aggressiveness.
This is not a novel concept, it's just that you and the Troglodytes are scrambling so hard to make empathy a foreign concept.
Here, read this:
Empathy and the New Testament
"You shall love your neighbor as yourself." (Matthew 19:16-19)
Please explain how you can apply the Golden Rule without empathy.
The Church-o-bots act like they invented these "concepts" or nice ideas that they can spout but not apply.
One who cannot understand that his actions have real effects on real people is called a sociopath. Is this what we want on our constitutional court?
The truth is that almost every court ruling based on Constitutional law requires some degree of interpretation. Two great examples are the First and Second Amendment. Their language is so broad and vaque that it's nearly impossible to apply them directly or literally to any modern circumstance.
Another is the right to privacy. When discussing Abortion or Gay Rights, the Conservative will insist that there is no such thing as a Constitutional Right to Privacy. But, start talking about putting computer chips on people's houses to monitor energy use, and they suddenly discover that such a right does exist, after all.
Every word and every puncuation mark has meaning. Scalia simply chose to ignore half of the amendment by declaring it didn't matter.
Wouldn't that computer chip monitoring be prohibited by the 4th amendment which guards against unreasonable searches and seizures?
(Why do they always make it so easy?)
That is the heart of matter.
"In his opinion, Douglas stated that the specific guarantees of the BILL OF RIGHTS have penumbras "formed by emanations from those guarantees that help give them life and sub-stance," and that the right to privacy exists within this area."
"Since Griswold, the penumbra doctrine has primarily been used to represent implied powers that emanate from a specific rule, thus extending the meaning of the rule into its periphery or penumbra."
http://law.jrank.org/pages/9152/Penumbra.html#ixzz0HaZYNwM5&D
The issue is that the "right of privacy" is not found in the Constitution. Rather it was a concept that emanates from it. When rights are declared this way, then one can argue that any rights the Justices decide can also be found in the penumbra.
It is that type of judicial activism, where the courts make up rights, that conservatives object.
The ninth amendment limits the power of the government to not take away any rights the writers left out.
If one wants to add the specific right of privacy, that only exists in the penumbra, then one should pass an amendment and make it part of the constitution.
What's more - what is SO BAD about the justices thinking we have a right to privacy anyway?! If that's judicial activism then give me all the activists you can! If that 'liberal' then I don't want to be conservative! Thing is... it's NOT liberal. It's libertarian. And that USED TO BE a branch of the REPUBLICAN party... before they went off the deep end embracing idiots like Falwell and Robertson. But why you think PRIVACY is a BAD THING, I couldn't imagine. If you want the gov't poking their nose in all of your business, knock yourself out, but I can't see how that could ever be considered a good thing.
You object to the court "making up rights," huh? Why? DO you just HATE freedom?
My point was these guys (Gingrich, but also con's in general) seem to think the rule of law must be absolute in all cases - and that no examination of motive or circumstance (read: empathy) is ever proper. This of course is utter nonsense - motive and circumstance are ALWAYS important to consider, and empathy may apply to victims as well as defendants, defendants as well as plaintiffs. In short, it is a judge's job to understand the situation they are presented with, and EMPATHY is essential to doing this because, after all, the 'situation' invariably involves HUMAN BEINGS, not abstract measurements and phenomena.
The authors and work I cited were merely examples of what happens when the law is applied WITHOUT empathy. When it is absolute and iron-clad and judegment is handed down with nary a thought the human beings that it affects. There are others, of course, but many of teh works of Dickens and Orwell serve as particularly good examples of the bleak world that these guys seem to be pulling for. Le Mis might be the best inditement I can think of as far as a inditement of appliying the LAW without EMPATHY.
And THAT is what Newt wants, apparently. At least that's what he seems to be arguing for, whether or not he knows it.
You are confusing upholding bad law and reinterpreting the law.
Les Miserables was fiction.
The law in many cases gives judges wide latitude in the pursuit of justice. Law takes into account motive and circumstance. Nobody is arguing that.
The appellate court level and above is to take a look at the law and see if it was followed. The role of the appellate court judge or SC justice is not to make judgements regarding how they feel. Rather it is to see if the law is being applied correctly. There can be no room for empathy at that level because if judges and justices are allowed to circumvent the meaning of the law, then there is no law other than what the judges decide. That leads to tyranny.
EMPATHY is understanding. You guys just made up this garbage about "how the JUDGE feels." Empathy has nothing to do with how the JUDGE FEELS, AT ALL! The feelings of the judge are irrelevant, but the feelings (motives, circumstances, etc...) of the parties pressing the case is essential to judging whether the law has been applied properly. And you can't fully grasp and appreciate that without empathy.
As for Le Mis being fiction? Yeah, duh! I'm aware of that. I'd also like to KEEP IT THAT WAY however.
It goes without saying that the appellate judge and/or SC justice need to understand the particulars of the situation. In case you missed it, that is why there are written and oral arguments. You are misinterpreting the role of a trial judge and an appellate judge.
The following is from excerpted from Jeffrey D. Olster, Attorney at Law Re: Role of Appellate Courts
"The role of the appellate court is the same in the civil and criminal justice systems -- to allow a party to remedy an error of law by the lower court."
That is it. No more. No less. the appellate judge does not retry the case or to apply empathy in deciding the case. The SC's job is to decide whether the law in question follows the Constitution. They should not make up new laws. That is the job of the legislature.
"The SC's job is to decide whether the law in question follows the Constitution."
Both of these will derided as activism by the party that doesn't like the ruling.
But from my point of view, both still reuire the judge to understand HOW the LAW was APPLIED, understanding a lot of of the particulars to make this judgement. I still say empathy is important for this - more so BECAUSE they're not re-trying the whole case.
What's more the law is not inherently good. It's merely the best we've been able to do, so far. But in judging it's constitutionality, the justices MUST take it's EFFECT into account (this requires empathy) to see if the law follows the SPIRIT of the constitution, as well as the letter. And the SPIRIT of the Constitution is to preserve our rights, and our freedom, and protect them from gov't excess. You may say that this is "creating new rights" but I say it's just followoing the SPIRIT and PURPOSE of the Constitution (and the Law) as they see it, and not applpying the letter of the law is a way that clearly violates the spirit.
That means there can be no empathy in discerning the rule of law. The rich person should not get any favors from a judge just as a poor person should not either.
Gingrich said it well, we do not live by the "rule of empathy" but by the rule of law. If we allow anything other than rule of law, then we are subject to the whim and caprice of any judge and justice may very well be denied.
And this "justice is blind" meme is a talking point that doesn't further the discussion if you are intent on furthering it, which is doubtful.
I think many of your ilk need to retake a few history, bible, and civics classes. First nerzog says empathy was declared by Jesus to be a "fundamental virtue", and now you are saying empathy is at the very heart of democracy.
Perhaps you could show where our founding fathers, (or any others for that matter), described democracy in that way?
There are many definitions of both democracy and liberalism. Perhaps you could share yours?
I find it laughable that you call "justice is blind" a meme. Have you never seen at the statue of Lady Justice? Why do you think she is wearing a blindfold and holding a scale?
The law is not perfect, and the cases brought before the court are rarely right out of the textbook. Most of the adults in the room know this.
The blindness of justice is a nice ideal, but I think you are misapplying it when it comes to the quality of empathy. You also misrepresent empathy.
The law is not perfect, and the cases brought before the court are rarely right out of the textbook. Most of the adults in the room know this.
The blindness of justice is a nice ideal, but I think you are misapplying it when it comes to the quality of empathy. You also misrepresent empathy.
As other's have pointed out, empathy is a root quotient in all wisdom. Religious wisdom included.
George Lakoff | Empathy, Sotomayor, and Democracy: The Conservative Stealth Strategy
http://www.truthout.org/053109A
George Lakoff, Truthout: "The Sotomayor nomination has given radical conservatives new life. They have launched an attack that is nominally aimed at Judge Sotomayor. But it is really a coordinated stealth attack - on President Obama's central vision, on progressive thought itself, and on Republicans who might stray from the conservative hard line."
Maybe to balance and weight the validity of the completing claims being made by the two parties? You know... by using some of that EMPATHY to discern their motives, circumestances, honesty, interests, etc...?
Just sayin'.
This is your opinion, not fact. It is one scool of thought, but it's a fairly old, outmoded one. Considering the cirumstance, motive and mental state as well as simply assessing the honesty and intest of the witness, are all critical to any REAL justice and thie requires EMPTHY.
You are still seeming to instist that having empathy somehow involves putting YOUR OWN feelings into the situation. But this is nonsense. EMPATHY involves understandong the emotions (motive, circumstance, honesty, etc...) of others.
How this could POSSIBLY be a bad thing in a JUDGE I'll never know. How you can even BE a good judge WITHOUT IT, I'll never know. Empathy does not involve changing the law. It means that one will apply the law the way it was MEANT TO BE, instead of blidnly handing down an obviously draconian decision jeust because 'that's the law.'
A homeless guy stealing a loaf of bread is NOT the same as Gangbager knocking over a liquor store and THAT'S NOT THE SAME as a billionaire CEO embezelling from his company, raiding his employee's retirement fund, and then rigging it so that they can't sell their share and get out before they lose everything.
If YOU can't see this, then it is YOU who are BLIND.
To understand love as having no relation to the person being loved, only to the one who loves-- that is astounding.
To interpret the Golden Rule outside of any context that includes those who you're "doing unto", connected only to the rewards for the one "doing", I didn't think that view existed in anybody over the age of three (when the ends of getting dessert was the only reason for the means of being nice to your sister, completely outside of any moral or ethical guidelines).
It becomes more clear all the time why people like Barney feel the need to trumpet their Christianity. His understanding of its teachings is so lacking, focused only on the benefits to himself.
It is actually fascinating in a way, until you realize that this is the sort of thought that makes up what is left of the Republican party. Then it just makes me sad. I know I have said it before, but I truly believe that this country needs at LEAST 2 strong political parties. As of now, the Republicans could not be setting themselves up for irrelevance anymore than they are. Our only hope may be that this leads to a new party of some kind.